"It's a mental health issue."One thing that is disappointing though is they are not calling for increased funding and resources for mental health services. Early indications say that the shooter was a very troubled individual.
"It's a mental health issue."
"Okay, then let's do mental health checks before someone is allowed to buy or possess a gun."
"Hell no! What if they decided I'm crazy???"
You know what... you are right. Tell you what, let's also ban alcohol and cars to do away with drunk driving too. And knives... people get stabbed you know. Oh and fireworks! Fireworks kill people. And beef... it is bad for the environment. Computers, because people are using them for cyber crimes too... Rocks, we have to do away with rock collections since it was the first murder weapon!And yet it still happens. Because the person can quickly get a gun.
Sigh. Tried and true. Can you cut a steak with a gun? What about take your kid to school with a gun? I know I can't eat a gun, very metally.You know what... you are right. Tell you what, let's also ban alcohol and cars to do away with drunk driving too. And knives... people get stabbed you know. Oh and fireworks! Fireworks kill people. And beef... it is bad for the environment. Computers, because people are using them for cyber crimes too... Rocks, we have to do away with rock collections since it was the first murder weapon!
Crimes don't happen because of guns... crimes happen because criminals are going to commit crimes. A gun is a tool. Tools should not be available to everyone. Someone who has a history of cyber crimes should not have access to a computer.
Figured you might think this is funny... a friend of mine (more liberal than me) has a side hustle in which he buys as much ammo as he can when prices are low, and then sells at 3X to 4X the cost when gun nuts predictably freak out when a Democrat gets elected and sporting goods stores run out. He doesn't even own a gun. He views it simply as "a fool and his money are soon parted."And here we go again...
President Biden on Tuesday called on Congress to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and to close loopholes in the background check system after a gunman killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo.thehill.com
Just the mention of it has caused my local ammo provider to sell out of some calibers in a matter of hours.
Sigh? what is this 7th grade?Sigh. Tried and true. Can you cut a steak with a gun? What about take your kid to school with a gun? I know I can't eat a gun, very metally.
The value of the gun is incredibly limited. Why do we continue to make these strawman arguments? We shouldn't take away cars from people... wait for it, unless they get arrested for drunk driving. You know how I know if someone got arrested for drunk driving? There is a public system I can look at. They are registered, etc.
Crimes will happen, for sure. Knife crimes would not kill 10 people within minutes. Drunk driving rarely kills 10 people in minutes (although I am not going to say it is "better" or doesn't ever happen). The point you are making is that the potential savings of life is not worth the reduction in your ability to do whatever you want to do. I would imagine you would say the reduction in your LIBERTY! The truth is though, there would be no reduction in liberty. But yes, you would not be allow to just do whatever you want. There would be regulations and protections, for the millions of people who do not agree with you on guns not making crimes worse.
Can you at least admit that if the mass killer in Boulder had a knife instead of a gun, he would have likely killed less people? Or is the ability to shoot 10 shots at a deer quickly, once a year, worth the risk that he could use it on people?
Figured you might think this is funny... a friend of mine (more liberal than me) has a side hustle in which he buys as much ammo as he can when prices are low, and then sells at 3X to 4X the cost when gun nuts predictably freak out when a Democrat gets elected and sporting goods stores run out. He doesn't even own a gun. He views it simply as "a fool and his money are soon parted."
Your statement is BS.Almost every guy will admit that sometimes if you don't have a hammer, the back of a wrench will work to sink a lifted nail. If he didn't have a gun, it is likely he would have found something else to cause harm.
Why is it BS... because I provide links to facts regarding murders and the weapons used? Or is it because every one of these mass murders that you posted were committed by a person with an evil intent or a mental issue? Or maybe because it is the political "Feel Good" answer instead of actually doing something about the real problem.Your statement is BS.
The same day as Sandy Hook, there was an attack at an elementary school in China. A similar number of children were injured. NONE were killed, owing to the fact that the attacker couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. Yes, children were injured but THEY LIVED.
The problem with your assertion is that other, non-firearm methods of attack are far less efficient at causing injury and therefore attacks made with other weapons are far less lethal.
Other countries have figured it out. They've greatly reduced mass shootings. No, not totally eliminated, but just because you don't have an absolute fix doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Yes... and why did the person in China want to cause harm? What if he used a bat, or a car, or box cutters to hijack a plane and fly it into the building. All have been used in the past.Did you read the whole post?
At this point I'd be fully in favor of confiscating all guns. I don't care anymore about men with inadequacies trying to compensate. Get over it.
So one stabbing of 19, huh? Hmm, totally seems like it happens enough to warrant a comparison to the gun violence that occurs daily in the US. With your chart you just ignore the "Firearms, type not stated" just go right for Rifles! It is my guess that some of those not stated guns were rifles. And knives include cutting instruments, so it also probably includes non-knife things, like pizza cutters so....Sigh? what is this 7th grade?
No, I can't cut a steak with a gun... but I can shoot the deer that provides that steak with one. Not all guns are about hunting either. As for being incredibly limited, sure... but most things are, but murder is not one. As for cars, give me a break. There are examples that this tool can be just as deadly and take less time to commit the the same or greater damage.
Do you believe that the tool makes one commit the crime? Given that, it a freaking miracle that I haven't committed a crime. More so, there are estimates that Americans own 8 million AR-15 rifles out of the total number of 300 million guns. Even more so, when you look at the data associated with murders, all rifles are only a small fraction of the total weapons used. AR-15 are even a small fraction of that group. You ask if he would have killed less people with a knife, maybe, but a mass stabbing in Japan killed 19. More so, there are murders committed by knives than by all rifles.
So no. Your emotional argument is not back by facts. It is backed by fear of what you don't understand.
My question to you is why don't you think we should focus on mental health issues?
Hey I get it. What happened is horrific and we are all looking for solutions on how to fix the problem. But we need to focus on what the real problem is. Why did this person do what he did. It wasn't because he had access to a gun. (Which we can all agree that he should not have had access to)
That is why I buy in bulk when it is cheap.
You don't read my post do you. Therefore let me break this down for you...So one stabbing of 19, huh? Hmm, totally seems like it happens enough to warrant a comparison to the gun violence that occurs daily in the US. With your chart you just ignore the "Firearms, type not stated" just go right for Rifles! It is my guess that some of those not stated guns were rifles. And knives include cutting instruments, so it also probably includes non-knife things, like pizza cutters so....
You work so hard to make an argument about why a specific gun isn't so bad. But the other side of that argument is that there is no reason they need to be owned. By your own admission they serve no real purpose beyond pleasure. My "emotional" argument is backed by the same facts you seem to use to support the idea that you want something!
I am not arguing against mental health solutions. Our country has underfunded our mental health hospitals and healthcare options for years. It is hard to get insurance companies to pay for mental health visits. There are a lot of issues with that, but the people who are AGAINST gun control, are certainly not arguing for universal healthcare or other ways to help support those who are in need, so this isn't a very solid argument, unless you are saying you individually, whom are different from the group, think that, and then that is fine, but it certainly isn't fact or data beyond your own personal opinion, which is fine.
The problem is that guns allow for poor decisions to be made quicker. We have banned mines. We have banned hand grenades? I mean why? I just like to go hunting with my buddies and throw a grenade at a deer so I can get steak!! Guns, generally, provide little to no value to the general public. We have a sick obsession with them, and for whatever reason continue to find "facts" that support the need for them beyond self defense and hunting. I get hand guns. I get shotguns. I get some rifles. Pleasure shooting would be fine as well, as long as we require a ton of loops to jump through that assure that individual should own a "tool" that has no unique value beyond taking life. I think this is where your argument folds. Why shouldn't we have a registration and insurance requirements for guns?
It is so hard to understand because your interpretation of their intent is wrong.I can't understand why there's even debate on this essential right. The reason why congress should not pass any laws restricting gun ownership is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution - it's so we can maintain militias! What is so hard to understand about that? That's why so many many of us patriots report once a month to the village green so that we can perform line drills with our muskets under the watchful eye of the Company commander (and what a dashing figure he cuts perched gallantly upon his stallion with sabre drawn). Sure, some of the poorer members lack the funds necessary to purchase those newfangled socketed bayonets and the grenadiers never seem to have the necessary supplies Continental Congress continually promises, but it is through such patriotic fervor that our lands are kept free from foreign kings and potentates.
You are correct that we will never see eye to eye on it... but it isn't because of the founders. Yes, I am a huge fan of the multiple pages of parchment in the national archives and the structures and details that the founders prepared for us. But I think we won't see eye to eye on this because you have a belief that we should eliminate the weapon used instead of finding ways to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. We can ban all the weapons we want, but there will always be tools used to cause harm. In the end we want the same thing. We want people to be safe. We just have very different fundamental beliefs on how to achieve that goal.I think we will never see eye to eye on this topic, because I do not idolize the founders, nor a constitution that had no way to understand today's world of guns or weaponry. The idea that they could have understood that catastrophic destruction that these weapons have had on our world would not have made them idolize these weapons. They viewed everything through protection from government overreach, not protection based on the ownership of weapons. Those weapons (which they assumed would be equal to that of which the government could put together), would defend them against the new war. None of those understandings touch on the world we have today, our government's ability to erase a house without leaving Quantico, and social media and the news media making government more transparent where they can't just "take over".
"The experience of my brethren in the wars that have been fought is that my ability to keep guns in case the government attempts to tyrannize us, is greater than that of which life is valued. My need to have a weapon to defend against government bombs and sharks with lasers on their heads, shall not be diminished by that which is important to me, which is the "right" for me to have all types of guns without consideration or question".
-A founder, probably. Februaryish 29, 1789.
The voting changes resulted from a range of elements including constitutional amendments.Somebody explain why
A constitutional right shouldn't/can't be regulated - 2nd
but the right to vote has changed over time; some times not for the better (current efforts)
there is the "privilege" - driving a car is regulated - to get a license you have take a class. a written test, driving test & also have proof of insurance & registration. There are separate licenses required for trucks & motorcycles.
You are correct that we will never see eye to eye on it... but it isn't because of the founders. Yes, I am a huge fan of the multiple pages of parchment in the national archives and the structures and details that the founders prepared for us. But I think we won't see eye to eye on this because you have a belief that we should eliminate the weapon used instead of finding ways to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. We can ban all the weapons we want, but there will always be tools used to cause harm. In the end we want the same thing. We want people to be safe. We just have very different fundamental beliefs on how to achieve that goal.
The voting changes resulted from a range of elements including constitutional amendments.
However, guns are heavily regulated and differ from state to state. The weapon used in CO is illegal in CA and NY. I have never been able to purchase a weapon without having to show and in many cases I have had to go through background checks. In some states, you have to show ID to buy some types of ammo too. In most states you do need a license if you are going to conceal carry a weapon and with some weapons, you need a permit to purchase it (Handguns are a common example).
Why do you think that is?The U.S. has 4.4% of the world's population but 42% of the world's weapons (handguns, rifles and the like). As I have said previously, we have an absurd fetish with guns in this country. Until that is solved, innocent people will be routinely gunned down.
My opinion is that we have an obsession with guns that is unhealthy.Why do you think that is?
More so, do you think more reasonable approaches to gun control than banning one type will result in less violence?
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Gum Chewer: [chewing gum] Arson... armed robbery... mayhem...
Hedley Lamarr: Wait a moment. What have you got in your mouth?
Gum Chewer: [stops chewing] Nuff'm.
Hedley Lamarr: "Nuff'm", eh? Lyle!
Lyle: [searches the man's mouth] Gum!
Hedley Lamarr: Chewing gum on line, eh? I hope you brought enough for everybody.
Gum Chewer: [panicked] I didn't know there was going to be so many!
[Hedley shoots the gum chewer]
Jim: [hidden behind a rock] Boy, is he strict!
My opinion is that we have an obsession with guns that is unhealthy.
Also, I think many people would ban more than just one type of gun, but many also realize that we have to start somewhere, and hope that even that little bit will help a problem that just continually goes unchecked because a portion (a minority that happens to have gerrymandered power in many states) won't let anything change.
The reductions in guns would objectively by anyone's standard lower violence. I am not sure even the more ardent gun supporters would say that they don't agree there would be less violence if we ban guns. They just don't want any gun regulations because of liberty, framers, or some other weak arguments about the history of this country, etc.
Not sure I agree with that statement. It would lower GUN violence. But violence overall? Eh, perhaps not. We are a pretty violent people.
Fair. I meant gun violence.
For example, I have a buddy who is former military, a gun collector, and is an avid marksman that competes in tournaments and is a hunter. I know without a doubt that he has at least 20 guns that I know of, but I also know what they are all different in some aspect from the others. Some are bolt action long range, some are semiautomatic sporting rifles (like an AR-15), some are semiautomatic shot guns, some are over 100 years old, and some are military issue. He has hand guns, musket loaders, shot guns, and all sorts of stuff in between. He also stores them in a safes or lockbox depending on size and intent, understands how to use them, and has thought his kids the proper way to handle them and how to respect them. For 'his guns' . He has also gone through the necessary training and permitting to obtain some that are not legal for many people to own, such as fully automatic guns. Is this unhealthy?
My grandfather is an avid hunter and owns several different guns. This includes semiautomatic rifles (wood stock with scope for large game) and shot guns. But he has no hand guns. All are properly secured in a custom built gun cabinet. Is this unhealthy?
My neighbor is a retired cop, but not a hunter. He too owns several weapons, some are semiautomatic and a few handguns. All are property secured. Is this unhealthy?
Would you propose taking any of the weapons away from these people? Do these people have obsessions with weapons.
Would you propose taking any of the weapons away from these people?
Knife Shooter 3000? Cool! Is it the one with the scope, and the compass in the stock?Yes, it isn't about the person who bought the gun, or those whom properly secure them. It is about the kid who "accidently" used it. The son who made a poor choice and took his dads hunting rifle. The friend to knows his buddy has lots of guns who decides to steal one.
The point isn't that in your examples the gun collector or grandfather or neighbor are bad people. The point isn't about the people. The point is about the ability those guns create to have a catastrophic death event that is not created equally by any other legal weapon (unless you have seen a knife shooter 3000).
Many try and make this about people. It is the person who makes the mistake or is evil, not the weapon! But in the end if the weapon was a stick when that terrible person made that terrible choice, less people would die. My point is that yes, we should take away those guns because the fewer guns in private hands means the fewer lives are potentially lost to gun violence.
It may surprise you, but I enjoy shooting cans with a bb gun or clay pigeons with a shotgun. I have many in my family who have concealed carry, and handguns. I am not against the example families who do this or that. I believe that we as a society have to do more to reduce the potential for terrible events. Mental health is a part of that solution, but so it the removal of the tool (or limitation) that creates the catastrophic event.
I am sorry, but if it is on a wholesale approach, I am going to disagree. I think there are parameters where someone's gun should be taken away, but for law abiding citizens who have passed a background check and treat them with respect, then I don't think the Government should, or has the constitutional authority, to do so.I don't want the government to take anyone's guns away, but I would argue there is probably no other way to realistically reduce gun violence. I would support seeing my own tax dollars used to compensate takings.
I say that with no judgement whatsoever towards the people you reference. I'm sure they are all responsible gun owners.
Relax, Skippy, I've been warning you for years that the hate's gonna eat you up.Kemp is now back at the top of my $hit list
I am sorry you feel that way. Let me know how your crusade to confiscate everyone's guns works out for you. May I suggest you start in Chicago and Baltimore. They already have super strict gun laws so I am sure that the liberal mayors in both situations will have a super easy time and people will be more than willing to turn their weapons in.Taken all together, Americans own 46% of the privately held guns, while comprising only 4.25% of the world's population. Is this unhealthy?
You can try to defend it all you want but there are way too many guns in the U.S.
Actually it was a toss up between her and that moron in North Dakota. "Covid Kim" indeed. I couldn't find a good moniker for North Dakota's.I think she should be at least 3rd in that list...
I mean Kemp sucks pretty badly. Objectively. Maybe not a monster, but in the grand scheme of governors he isn't leading.
The no water/food distribution for voting lines is beyond dumb, but keeping it in the bill was a compromise to get rid of other measures from the remaining Trump loyalists that were actual voter suppression measures. Still, it's stupid, but also easily circumventable. Overall, though, voting in 2024 will be more accessible than in 2018 - details, details...I think it will be interesting how badly Kemp is crushed in the Primary by far right Georgians, who don't believe in sharing water
Than the Collins v. Abrams 2022 race will be interesting to see if Georgia truly is purple or if it was just an anti-Trump bump (which is my guess).
Looks like Iowa is currently 15th in mortalityActually it was a toss up between her and that moron in North Dakota. "Covid Kim" indeed. I couldn't find a good moniker for North Dakota's.
As for being third, it's hard to get that high with monsters like Kemp and Noem. Actually Noem is the worst of them all but since SD is such a small state, she has murdered fewer people. That's why DeSantis and Abbott are so high. They have the blood of 10s of thousands on their hands, but Per capita, Noem is the biggest killer of them all.
I'd have to weigh Iowa's population against Covid deaths but I just can't see her cracking the Top 3.
The four-part, eight-year plan dedicates $620 billion for transportation -- including a doubling in federal funding for public transit -- and $650 billion for initiatives tied to improving quality of life at home, like clean water and high-speed broadband. There’s $580 billion for strengthening American manufacturing -- some $180 billion of which goes to what’s billed as the biggest non-defense research and development program on record -- and $400 billion to address improved care for the elderly and people with disabilities.